On July 21, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation (CST) Committee held a hearing on Measuring What Matters: Science, Standards, and Strategic Competition. In his opening remarks, Chairman Ted Budd (R-NC) spoke about the important need to better define what constitutes successful science, as well as outcome-based metrics for measuring adoption of technology and determining which lines of research make the greatest impact. Budd expressed urgency in the race against China. Ranking Member Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) aligned herself with the goals of global leadership in science and innovation. Baldwin then challenged the nation’s ability to lead globally while this administration’s actions across the federal government — terminating grants, laying off staff and forcing departures, targeting research institutions — actively undermine the federal science infrastructure.
The Committee — with Senators coming and going — heard from four witnesses:
- The Honorable Walter Copan, PhD, Vice President Emeritus for Research and Technology Transfer at the Colorado School of Mines
- Dr. Drew Endy, Director of Bio-Strategy and Leadership at the Hoover Institution
- Dr. Robert Atkinson, Founder and Senior Fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)
- Dr. Julia Phillips, Former member of the National Science Board (NSB)
Despite the title of the hearing, the testimony and questions failed to reach the heart of the matter about how to more accurately measure the value of science. Questions instead focused on strategic competition with China and standards specifically for biotechnology.
A few themes emerged throughout the hearing. All witnesses recognized the changing global landscape and the real threat of China taking the lead in science and innovation. However, witnesses differed in their perception of the real risks and ways to keep the U.S. in the lead. Dr. Philips pointed to chronic underspending at the National Science Foundation (NSF) as a major threat to the country’s long-term prosperity and safety. She raised concerns that cutting off American scientists’ ability to utilize international resources would leave the U.S. vulnerable to falling further behind.
Senator John Hickenlooper (D-CO) asked about the importance of investing in basic research and cited examples of NSF-funded cognitive science research that began in the 1970s, ultimately leading to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. (Shout out to former FABBS president Jay McClelland — Golden Goose Award: How We Think: Brain-Inspired Models of Human Cognition Contribute to the Foundations of Today’s Artificial Intelligence.) In response, Dr. Endy stated that the “public treasure is best spent on foundational science and engineering research,” expressing concern the U.S. has moved away from prioritizing fundamental research in favor of applied research. Dr. Endy argued that if the foundations are right, there will be broad and far reaching benefits, whereas applied approaches are narrow in scope while infinite in possible proposals. Drs. Philips and Copan also spoke about the critical importance of investing in basic research, with Dr. Philips referring to basic research as “our nation’s seed corn.” Dr. Atkinson alone pushed for a shift to more applied science.
Witnesses, directly and indirectly, criticized the Office Management and Budget (OMB), expressing support for merit review over political influence in the grantmaking process. In his comments, Dr. Copan echoed concerns raised by Baldwin, stating that “recent disruptions and self-inflicted wounds have slowed our research enterprise and weakened American capacity.”
